From: atropos@mac.com   
      
   On Feb 23, 2026 at 3:26:37 PM PST, "moviePig"  wrote:   
      
   > On 2/23/2026 5:42 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>  On Feb 23, 2026 at 12:43:15 PM PST, "moviePig"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>  On 2/23/2026 1:50 PM, BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>>>    On Feb 23, 2026 at 3:40:58 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman""    
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>    Today's rant is about in person early voting. March 17 primary. Not   
   that   
   >>>>>    concerned as two years ago, I already voted by mail, giving the post   
   >>>>>    office enough time.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    Indiana just cut early voting in half. It is a Republican state. A   
   handful   
   >>>>>    of Republican legislators were familiar with the statistics and knew   
   >>>>>    that this is popular with their own voter and in a few counties, half   
   of   
   >>>>>    voters vote early. But the idiot Republican legislators in a heavily   
   >>>>>    Republican state still want to eliminate it despite their own voters   
   >>>>>    using it and liking it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    My state has 40 days since COVID. However, it is not full time and   
   each   
   >>>>>    county sets its own hours with 1 location. For the last 15 days, there   
   >>>>>    are an expanded number of locations and weekend hours.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    Some day, Republicans will come to understand they are pissing off   
   their   
   >>>>>    own voters with their false claims and fears about making voting more   
   >>>>>    convenient.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    If we're making early voting extend outward 40 days before and now (in   
   >>>>    California) 20 days after Election Day, we've now turned Election Day   
   into   
   >>>>    Election Quarter. Fully 25% of the year is now "Election Day". It's   
   >>>> getting   
   >>>>    fucking ridiculous.   
   >>>   
   >>>  Rhetorical question:  What's the inherent virtue of synchronized voting?   
   >>   
   >>  Well, for one thing, if you vote in September, a whole lot of shit can   
   >> happen   
   >>  around the world between then and November which could/would influence your   
   >>  vote. If you've already voted for a candidate and you find out afterward   
   >> that   
   >>  she's actually guilty of a homicide, you can't [take] that vote back.   
   >   
   > But that'd be your choice, i.e., to forgo your chance to waffle.   
   > Thinking further on it, an election with a running tally of votes cast   
   > so far sounds potentially interesting...   
      
   So why don't we just have continuous elections? As soon as a new president is   
   sworn in, the next election starts and runs until November 7 four years   
   later?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)